Private And Public School Partnerships

Sharing Lessons About Decentralization

Jean Madsen

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2003
• eBook ISBN: 9781135716882
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

The presentation of a practical model showing how three schools dealt with privatization. This study asks whether privatization is a means of improving education and discusses the issues central to successful privatization including the choices for parents.

Chapter 1

Defining the Context for Privatization

From Site-based Management to Privatization

The ‘excellence movement’ resulted in policies that prescribed educational reform from the top down. These state legislative mandates, considered ‘safe’ in their approach, aimed to improve educational outcomes by improving the teaching act. This ‘excellence movement’ focused quite specifically on fixing the people and not the organizational structure of schools. The ‘excellence movement’ was seen as the standards-raising for school improvement (Murphy and Hallinger, 1993). Analysis of the ‘excellence movement’ revealed that the conventional public schools of the mid–1980s with their standardized, highly regulated environments were ill-suited for school reform. The restructuring movement in the 1990s took a bottom-up approach for school improvement that called for districts to modify the structure of educational decision-making and realign the balance of authority among teachers, administrators, and parents. This early movement, known as site-based management (SBM), meant more than just delegating authority to lower levels of the system. Within the SBM movement came the call for greater accountability in conjunction with the return of more authority to the schools.

Chapman (1990) defines school-based management as a form of educational administration where decision-making occurs at the local level. Site-based management is a business derivative of decentralization and participatory decision-making. The intent of the site-based management is to improve student performance by making those closest to the delivery of services—teachers and principals—more autonomous, resulting in their being more responsive to parents’ and students’ concerns. Many educators thought site-based management would give them greater flexibility and trust in decision-making and make them more responsive to their public. While in some cases site-based management did not appear to be a stimulus for school improvement, many parents and teachers did feel positive about their involvement in the school decision-making process. However, there are many illustrations of where site-based management principles were implemented very poorly.

Hannaway’s (1993) study of two districts implementing a site-based management plan revealed that many of the concepts tended to undermine the schools’ concerns about curriculum and teaching. While teachers traditionally work in isolation, the SBM movement required them to work in a participatory manner that was foreign to them. Her study discovered that innovative governance structures must consider technical demands such as curriculum and teaching. Clear objectives and a uniform philosophy of instruction create a common thread that gives teachers a sense of mission and ties to the educational program of the school. Teachers in decentralized schools must have commonly defined goals that everyone shares, and they need to feel efficacious in how those goals will be implemented into the curriculum and in their teaching.

Hill and Bonan (1991) studied several suburban systems that had implemented site-based management policies. Their research indicated five major conclusions: (1) Although SBM focuses on individual schools, its success depends upon the success of the entire school system; (2) SBM requires a basic reform strategy not just a connection of reform programs; (3) under SBM, schools need time to develop their own distinctive features; (4) SBM requires a degree of accountability that will not interfere with the intent of autonomy; and (5) SBM should be based on parental choice to create product differentiation in educational mission. They believe efforts to control schools at the district level make schools more accountable to higher authorities rather than to the constituencies that they serve. Deregulated schools must take the initiative in responding to students’ and parents’ needs and must become competent organizations and not clones of bureaucratic regulated models.

While many schools in the United States claim to implement SBM, very little decision-making is truly decentralized. In most cases SBM is only a subset of the various types of decisions that are made at the district level. Thus, some districts may decentralize budget decisions but may maintain control of personnel and curriculum concerns. Other SBM plans give some autonomy about trivial issues like school safety, parent involvement, and career education. The illusion of autonomy based on SBM is often constrictive because the district office retains the final authority or limits the range of decision-making (Bimber, 1993).

Clune (1993) notes that presently educational policy recommends a more ambitious approach in improving student achievement through a centralized strategy of a state mandated curriculum and student assessment. He believes that by having a more centralized approach to school improvement defeats the intent of site-based management. Local districts are unable to implement their own curriculum policies because they have to carry out a state-mandated curriculum. While some districts may be given greater autonomy through new site-based policies, the State undermines their power through state curriculum mandates (Madsen, 1994).

The State department of education plays a pivotal role in allowing greater flexibility in state regulations. Many state agencies seem to welcome legislative mandates as an excuse to use their authority to regulate behavior and allocate resources as they see fit. Madsen (1994) notes that the State department has what is known as the ‘Ivory Tower Syndrome’. The State department of education makes sweeping state regulations to be implemented into local schools for which they may be neither necessary nor relevant. State departments of education like to regulate schools to ensure uniformity, thereby preventing schools from having greater autonomy and flexibility with school improvement programs. Weiler (1990) believes that the sharing of the State’s power affects two key conditions for the maintenance of state authority: (a) the need to maintain control of district decision-making, and (b) the need to assure the reproduction of existing social relations with the help of the educational system. Both of these concepts are in direct conflict with the ‘sharing-of-power’ notion of site-based management that allows for greater flexibility in allocating resources so districts may exercise greater latitude in responding to their needs.

Anderson and Dixon (1993) believe that despite the shift of authority from the State to the local level, preliminary results indicate continued conformity to state mandates. Their research of SBM reveals that high schools in their study were moving to more stringent and control-oriented policies involving student conduct. The high school management council instituted permanent expulsion policies while ignoring concerns about curriculum, equity issues, and major restructuring. Their study reveals that participation in site-based management does not guarantee an equitable voice for its diverse constituencies. These researchers reveal that class and race play an important role in the SBM movement. Middle class parents are related to schools through the social discourse of language while many poor parents are excluded from the participatory process. For site-based management to effect fundamental change, power must be equally distributed among all participants, not just a few.

Malen, Ogawa, and Kranz (1990) conducted a study of site-based governance councils in several districts, which revealed that teachers and parents did not wield significant influence on major decisions. The study suggests that parents and teachers exert less power than administrators on decisions made by councils. Thus school-based management generates involvement into the decision-making process but does not truly empower its participants when it comes to making policy. There is little evidence to suggest that school-based management truly affects structural changes needed to improve schools. However, site-based management may open lines of communication between the school and district. As a result, principals may be able to alter their role and facilitate open communication with parents and teachers. When school councils are allowed to function they take on an advocacy role for their school. This advocacy allows parents the opportunity to create an awareness of their needs and voice their concerns to the districts. However, they still have no vote in school decisions.

Site-based management, as we have seen, does not necessarily allow for all voices to be heard. Typically site-based councils represent individuals who are like-minded resulting in stricter standards for behavior. These standardraising policies do not address organizational or governance concerns. Site-based management implies that curriculum, personnel, and budget decisions be made at the building level. However, there is considerable variance across school settings regarding who makes the decisions at the building level. School advisory councils are a way to obtain input from teachers, parents and local businesses. However, it is unclear how much authority site-based management allows in these settings.

A synthesis of research findings raises many concerns about site-based management. Although many educators view site-based management positively, some researches have not generated favorable reviews. While one particular theory states that site-based councils will empower teachers, parents and others, research indicates that administrators retain their dominant position by controlling the flow of information. It also indicates that participation in site-based councils does not necessarily influence policy making. Site-based management was also seen as a way to energize the organizational structure of the schools by improving motivation and morale. While morale improves in the early stages of implementation, school personnel often become frustrated and lose enthusiasm due to constraints of resources and limited input in the governance structure. Site-based management was also expected to improve long range planning and allow for greater flexibility and innovation. Since many of the advisory councils tended to focus on discipline issues and not curriculum concerns, opportunities for school improvement were minimal (Clune and Witte, 1990). Because the term, school site-management, defies a precise definition, implementation was difficult and unsuccessful.

The Nature of Marketization and Privatization

After a decade of state reforms, problems in implementing site-based management, and varied attempts to improve student achievement, a new tactic—privatizing public schools using marketing principals—offers some promise. Research on the performance levels of public versus private organizations reveals that privatized contexts perform significantly better at lower costs than do public agencies (Savas, 1987). These favorable experiences have led governments to experiment with broadening the role of the private sector. Privatization works because it allows government to separate the roles of provider and producer. Furthermore, privatization has been effective because it empowers consumers by giving them choices among different providers of service. Privatization forces organizations to consider the wishes of consumers, to use resources efficiently, and to create innovative and marketable programs. Privatization and district-wide choice offers a more effective delivery of educational services.

Privatization has been defined in many different ways. Cooper (1989) defines privatization as a way to foster competition between the State and non-public school sectors and between schools within sectors, in order to stimulate improvements and innovations; to bring private funds and local initiatives into education; and to offer a wide range of schools (philosophies, types and values) to parents in order to allow them to select the schools they prefer. Hannaway and Carnoy (1993) view privatization as individual schools (whether publicly owned, privately owned and secular or privately owned and religious) which would operate with equal access to public resources and independent of public control in a free market for educational resources. Comprehensive choice, on the other hand, involves providing public school funds to parents so they can purchase educational programs offered by multiple providers. Allowing parents to use their education taxes to pay for tuition at private schools constitutes a kind of contracting out for educational services. Both comprehensive choice and privatization allow for parental choice among public schools which fosters competition among schools as a way to stimulate school improvement. They also promote making schools individual units, responsive to attracting and retaining a fee-paying (through either tuition or tax credits) student clientele.

The privatization movement is based on the ‘market economy’ concept. The intent of privatization is to make schools responsive to their clients and accountable for the delivery of services. The introduction of more competition and the enhancement of parental choice is essential to improving schools. The school privatization movement means competing for students, marketing a product, organizing efficiently, and developing a clear school mission (Beare and Boyd, 1993). Universal education without the constraints of public school regulations and a market-oriented competition will create an incentive for school improvement (Savas, 1987). Savas (1987) believes that to begin the privatization of schools is to introduce competition by allowing parents a choice in selecting public schools and forcing those schools that are ineffective to go out of business or make modifications for improvement. Savas also believes that private schools may ‘save’ public schools because they model the responsiveness needed to change the organizational structure of schools.

James Coleman et al. (1982) bolster the case for vouchers and tuition tax credits. Coleman found that private high schools provide a better education than public high schools and offer greater economic and ethnic diversity. Yet, Cooper (1989) believes that total privatization is highly unlikely because of the demand for universal educational services for all children. However, he also states that a little capitalism and privatization may challenge the basic tenets of the public school system. It may force schools to be more responsive to their clients’ needs and react to national concerns. Naismith (1994) defines four main features of a demand-driven market system in which schools might remain competitive. (1) Schools would become autonomous in their financing and dependent on parent support. (2) Parents would participate in selecting the educational program for their needs using a voucher system. (3) The State would relinquish its governance over the supply and demand of school closings. (4) The State would strengthen quality control mechanisms to prevent schools from falling below acceptable standards and provide technical support for improvement.

Chubb and Moe (1988) believe that private schools create an involvement that allows them to be more autonomous and mission driven. Private school principals’ autonomy is greater in the areas of curriculum, instructional methods, discipline, hiring and firing. Privatization allows a school to develop a mission that creates an environment where everyone works collectively. The school is consumer driven so it responds to parents by remaining innovative. Teachers are encouraged to remain current in their field and contribute to maintaining the quality of the school. Privatization is based on the premise of creating a community of learners who must work collaboratively to retain its membership. The work of Chubb and Moe is significant because they believe that market-driven schools are better because they are not governed from a centralized authority.

Problems of Privatization and Choice

Because the free-market concept of school privatization is only a theory at this point, advocates believe that choice is the panacea for all educational concerns and that only a free market can improve schools and stimulate children’s learning. Although the benefits of privatization are still unproven in the literature, there is strong belief that competition for students can improve schools. However, there is little proof that choice will necessarily lead to better student outcomes. Paulu (1989) states that choice in school privatization can bring about structural changes to schools by encouraging individuality, fostering competition and accountability, improving educational outcomes, reducing the drop-out rate and improving parent satisfaction and involvement in the schools. Cookson (1992) notes that not all school choice policies imply complete deregulation of public schools. Controlled choice allows parents to choose from several public schools that have specific educational missions. He also notes that some schools, reduced to mom and pop educational stores, struggle to retain students from year to year in response to the whims of the marketplace. He also implies that some schools will be great while other schools will be poor. Cookson also questions how privatized schools will be monitored in a decentralized context.

In their criticism of self-managed schools in England, Smyth and others (1993) suggest that increased competition among schools creates a hierarchy of unequally funded schools. In a competitive market, schools already advantaged will have substantial leverage over poorer, less developed schools. Smyth believes that by deregulating schools the State is shrinking in its responsibility for providing quality outcomes for all students. Competition creates greater inequality because those with financial resources can leave while those remaining are trapped in ineffective schools. Principals would become more like ‘entrepreneurs’ than managers of school reforms. Schools within a competitive environment may cut corners rather than providing services for students.

Downes (1994) argues that the self-managing school philosophy in England is based on a culture of ‘competitiveness and possessive individualism’. Critics argue that ‘marketing’ should not be viewed as an effort to persuade reluctant purchasers to buy a product but as an opportunity to meet the needs of customers. However, questions arise regarding these customers. Are they students or parents? Defining parents as consumers raises further questions: Are the parents engaged in their children’s education, or do they rely on the school to perform its role? Schools cannot always control their ‘marketing’ since word-of-mouth among parents is a major tool. Yet, they have a responsibility to match the professional message to the product.

Wells’ (1991) study indicates that families do not always choose schools on the basis of academic excellence but on the basis of racial affiliation. She discovered that many urban African American children often selected neighborhood schools even though these same children knew that the white schools were better. Parents of these same children, feeling powerlessness and alienation from their children, often deferred to their wishes. Thus, choice will not always be the solution for disadvantaged children. Brown (1992) believes that choice will foster conservative political ideology that will promote school prayer and religious overtones. He also states that choice may lead to social inequalities because the ‘haves’ are already informed, and no effort will be made to educate the ‘have nots’.

Issues of equity in terms of school privatization have been debated in the literature for many years. There are those critics who believe that privatization, which allows for choice, will stratify society on the basis of race. However, under the current public school system we still continue to have inequalities in funding public schools. A stratified school system exists even now following several desegregation cases that have not succeeded in improving racial distribution and equity.

Benefits of Privatization

On the other hand, researchers who favor privatization argue that such choice will improve schooling opportunities for all children. Slaughter and Schneider (1986) examined four private elementary schools and discovered that middle class African American parents selected private schools for their children because they perceived that these schools would assist them in achieving the educational goals they had for their children. Many of these same parents believed that the public schools that surrounded them were of inferior quality. These African Americans also felt that the academic push was more rigorous at their private school than at the public school. Schneider (1989) believes that most public schools have policies that make it impossible for poor minority parents to achieve parity in their children’s education in comparison to other children in other districts. Equitable schooling, it would seem, can only be assured if parents have choice.

Yet, there is considerable literature to suggest that minority parents are unable to make wise educational choices. As a result there is concern about legislating parental choice policies for alternative schooling. However, many studies (Bauch, 1989; Boykin, 1986; Bryk, Holland, Lee, and Carriedo, 1984; Cibulka, O’Brien, and Zewe, 1982) reveal that minority parents are responsible decision makers. Poor parents also are willing to make great financial sacrifices because they believe that private schools will be responsive to their children’s needs. Private schools also foster greater accountability for academic achievement for minority children due to their organizational characteristics and value structure. Issues of choice for minority families are governed by certain ‘consumer strategies’, and poor families may need education to make appropriate choices (Bauch, 1989).

With time many poor parents will become active consumers who can make informed decisions about the school needs of their children. It can be proven that when poor families make choices, they act very much like nonpoor families and become active participants in their school. Coleman, Schiller, and Schneider (1993) note that African American and Hispanic parents who are quite disadvantaged in terms of income and education showed strong response in selecting schools for their children. The privatization of schools allows these parents to choose freely the kind of education they want for their children. As a result, these families get more schooling for the tax dollars they spend.

The Community Aspect of Privatization

Choice is not the only benefit that comes with privatization. The ethos of private schools leads to the development of a community. Everyone supports the mission of the school through the curriculum and parental involvement activities. The school has well-defined boundaries that permeate its policies. Private schools work together to create a sense of ownership developing a bond of commitment and collaboration; these schools have considerable autonomy from state regulation and greater flexibility in responding to their constituencies. Cibulka (1989) views private schools as having an internal self-regulation that allows school participants to develop community by defining their own needs and resolving their own problems. This type of freedom from state regulation gives schools the opportunity to develop a community that can meet the needs of its constituencies.

Michaelsen (1989) believes that the market approach to schooling will lead to consensus and community needed to prepare children to live in a pluralistic democracy. Competition among schools will result in the development of personal autonomy. Under a radical decentralization of schools, those who value personal autonomy will develop schools that can model the importance of autonomy and democracy. Children gain personal autonomy through meaningful parent involvement, which cannot be achieved given the present system. Giving children access to inexpensive private schools would facilitate the kind of parent involvement that fosters personal autonomy....

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Dedication
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Acknowledgments
• List of Figures
• Foreword
• Introduction
• Chapter 1
• Chapter 2
• Chapter 3
• Chapter 4
• Chapter 5
• Chapter 6
• Chapter 7
• Appendix
• Bibliography